The Verbal Flatulence Of Earnest Shavers.....

fixed

 

And I'm calling you a jackass. Come back when you actually know something.

 

::

It's amazing how someone like Double knows so little yet has so much to say.

 

I like HOW he says it, it often makes very little sense::

 

There could surely be no one --- absolutely no one --- who would say anything to the contrary regarding Shavers.

 

This is a dichotomy I had tried to cast some light on for some time.

Earnie Shavers will go down as being a part of the greatest collection of contemporaneous heavyweights ever.

Yet a large swathe of that division, Norton, Shavers, Ellis, Lyle, Quarry, Young, would lose in a 12 round scheduled bout vs Vitali.

Ezzard Charles will never be the greatest light-heavyweight champion of all time, simply because he never won the title. Roy Jones was a great light-heavyweight champion, and heavyweight champ too. Yet he would undoubtedly lose, handily, to just about any version of Ezzard Charles. A classic instance of a great champion being overcome by a great fighter.

Shavers and friends may well claim membership of the greatest club ever, but they were fringe members. Their membership of a great club doesn't make them better dancers than the leading lights of a shitter club.

Shavers might well have fought Ali. So what. He lost. He might well have fought Holmes. So what. He lost. It would be folly to suggest that a guy like Vitali would struggle to improve on either of Shavers performances in those fights, and it would be utterly ill-advised to pick against him when facing a short, one-fisted puncher with an average chin and fairly poor stamina.

Belonging to the greatest heavyweight division of all time is a bit like being a Kennedy. For every Jack or Bobby there is a Teddy or ten.

 

Wow. Remind me never to mess with the team of cdogg and joe again. They are merciless.

 

I would be very interested to see either Klitschko against a prime Lyle.

 

::

Along the same lines, I would be interested in watching a piece of oak do battle with a woodchipper.

How bout some pitbull vs. chihuahua MM's while we're at it.

 

You know who suffered with cuts and suspect stamina and was stopped by less than stellar punchers?

Jerry Quarry.

You know who beat the shit out of Lyle?

Jerry Quarry.

Lyle had a great physique, tough-guy prison rap, and endeared himself in interviews etc.

And like Shavers, can lay claim to being another fringe member of a famous club.

This does not guarantee his chances against Vitali.

Fought Ali. Oh yeah. Lost. Fought Foreman. Oh yeah. Lost. Fought Quarry. Oh yeah. Lost.

I mean, who get's more credit? The man who climbs a 5,000 foot mountain successfully, or the guy who dies 10 yards into a trek on Everest?

Lyle even went and lost to Gerry Cooney. People make excuses, like Lyle was 39, but Vitali has had a longer pro career and I don't see him losing at the age of 39 to Cooney.

 

I don't really understand your point, Irish. Shavers and Lyle were fringe members of the best Era in heavyweight boxing. Are you questioning the merits of the 70's Heavyweights? It really has no bearing that some of the contenders who could never beat the upper echelon 70's heavyweights also couldn't beat the #1 heavyweight today, or even the top 2 if you want to throw Wladimir in there.

Is your point is that Shavers is taking advantage of being a member of the Golden Era (fringe tho it may be) and representing his opinion as more educated than most because of this?

Has anyone ever really given credence to Earnie Shavers opinion on boxing after the 1980's? Or ever?!?! Like i said - he picked Shannon Briggs to win the fight - the guy obviously is not to be taken seriously no matter how good or bad he ever was as a fighter/commentator/expert.

 

What I am saying is that scraping the bottom of an expensive barrel is still scraping the bottom of the barrel. Shavers and Lyle were suspect fighters who would be at a distinct physical and stylistic disadvantages against a guy like Vitali. I am not questioning the 70's at all, merely pointing out that it had some passengers who are free-loading off their association with that era, despite having won precious few significant fights.

 

Eh let him have his few extra moments of fame. He is spewing garbage anyway with the Briggs pick, its clear he is just trying to get attention (seems you fell for the bait).

I agree with the sentiment that the heavyweight division overall is weak right now and has been for a while - that tends to distort the fact that the two guys at the top are about as good as any of the top 2 in any era of heavweight boxing. Certainly as difficult to beat as any era as well considering their physical attributes.

Another old gem I love is Jerry Quarry being the best fighter to never win a title, or how "unlucky" he was to be put in the Golden Era. Please put him in just about any era and tell me when he would have picked up the heavyweight title. Sure if you conveniently placed him at a certain moment in time he could pick up a strap beating Michael Bentt or Shannon Briggs (hehe). But he was a good contender nothing more than that. IMO.

 

Yes I never bought that BS about Quarry. He could have won a title back in the old days {1900-1930's} but I feel he would be out of his depth in a lot of other era's.

 

:giggle:

 

R1ubbish, you jute sellout,.. Roy would have turned Gizzard into an Ice-cream man to go along with the people in his neighbourhood, the janitor, the milkman, the cop. You switch hitted your way into the mythical annals most suited to the tales and folklore of the old school for a bit,..friends close, enemies closer ay?.. :tick:

 

Quarry was a solid contender type. Certainly not the "best never to win a title", but not a bum either. Sometimes I think people confuse Quarry with Chuck Wepner.

Closer to a George Chuvalo, who he has a bit of a better resume then, despite getting beat by him in '69.

 

Oh man. Are you serious?

First, Shavers knocked out Jimmy Ellis, Jimmy Young and Ken Norton. He wasn't just a passerby in a great era. Yes, he lost to Lyle. He also had Lyle on the deck. Yes, he lost to Holmes. He also had Holmes on the deck.

Second, I think you are confusing Vitali with Wlad. In three reigns as champ, over an 11 year period, Vitali has successfully defended against (drum roll) Ed Mahone, Obed Sullivan, Danny Williams, Juan Carlos Gomez, Chris Arreola, Kevin Johnson and Albert Sosnowski. That's it!

I don't care how bad people think the heavyweight division is ... when you make a list of the top heavyweights from 1999 to 2010, NONE of the guys Vitali successfully defended against make the list.

If Vitali defeats Shannon Briggs, he will be the best challenger Vitali EVER successfully defended any of his titles against. (So that tells you a lot about what kind of champ Vitali has been and the quality of his challengers.)

For all his ups and downs (literally) Wlad Klitschko has faced FAR SUPERIOR competition than his brother.

If the Klitschkos were Kennedy's, Vitali would be "Ethel."

So saying most of the 70s heavyweights would lose to him is comical. What do you base that on ... his wins over Ed Mahone and Danny Williams?

Give me a break.

Vitali is the white Henry Akinwande. Nothing more. (Although Henry may have beaten better guys.)

 

Agreed, i think i came off too harsh on Quarry. Very good contender but i don't think he deserves the "best fighter never to win a title" distinction that many people have given to him.

 

:boohoo::boohoo:

Norton....another waste of space.

 

Ken Norton is in the Boxing Hall of Fame. Which of Vitali's stellar challengers will make it to the Hall? Hmm.

That's what I thought.

I mean, you're comparing Shavers and how he did with the best of the 70s.

How did Vitali do against the best from 1999 to 2010?

At the beginning of the decade there was an old Lennox Lewis, an old Evander Holyfield and an old Mike Tyson. In the middle there was Wladimir, Chris Byrd, John Ruiz, Lamon Brewster. Towards the end there was Nicolay Valuev, Ruslan Chagaev and David Haye. There's 10. How did Vitali do against them?

What is he, 0-2?

If you want to add Sergie Liakhovich, who fought a great war with Brewster in one of the epic fights of the decade, fine. If you want to add Rahman, who beat Lewis for the world title, fine. There's 12.

What is Vitali's overall score? Still 0-2?

If you want to add Golota, who looked to defeat Byrd and Ruiz, great. If you want to add Toney, who drew with Rahman and cheated to beat Ruiz, maybe. That's 14.

What's Vitali's score against the Top 14 heavyweights in what some call the "worst decade in heavyweight history? Still 0-2?

What about Sultan Ibragimov, who beat Shannon Briggs for his belt. Or Briggs?

Maybe you can add Maskaev, who beat Rahman for the title in a great fight. Maybe you can add Sam Peter, who defeated Maskaev but barely survived against Jameel McCline.

There's Jameel McCline, who beat Briggs but lost to Wlad, Byrd, Peter and Valuev in title fights.

Maybe you can add Corrie Sanders, who defeated Wlad but never beat another contender before that or after. Maybe you can add Roy Jones, who won one title fight and left.

Boy, you've got to get down to the end of the top 20 to find a win or two for Vitali over the worst heavyweight class.

Suddenly, Shavers' knockouts of Norton, Young and Ellis don't "suck" so bad, do they?

 

Agree with that part. I'm not really sure when that sentiment came into vogue, but it doesn't make much sense to me either.

 

Quarry was a good solid fighter, but I dont remember anybody around here ever saying that crazy shit about "best never to win the title"

 

Those are some valid issues raised, but let's not get ahead of ourselves with the K-Brothers --- they wouldn't do any better in that era than Lyle did.

 

You would have to rank him above Sam Langford for that, & this would be beyond subjective thinking.

Personally, though it's unfashionable, I don't even consider Quarry the best Heavyweight of his time not to have won the belt (I thought Oscar Bonavena would've beaten him, & Kenny Norton, who never became linear champion, was a better man than Quarry, IMO), but with that said, I do think Quarry was good enough in a couple of other eras to have taken the championship. Quarry gets a bad rap with cuts --- they didn't cripple his career the way is sometimes portrayed. How long he could have held it may've been another matter.

 

Dude, there's no conclusive proof that one theory is more true than another. Sorry.

 

I like it when Dubblechin posts.

 

Great post, Vitaly has consistently fought garbage throughout his career. He's another guy who'd rather have his fans gives him hypothetical victory than doing it himself. Arreola, Johnson, Sosnowsky, 40 y.o. Briggs, has there be another hw champ who fought 4 opponents as worhtless in a row ???

 

All Shavers had was power.

 

The division sucks. Who should Vitaly face who is willing to fight him????